The following descriptions are completely my own and do not necessarily reflect what anyone else thinks. They are merely listed as a continuation of a conversation that appears to have grown out of my original post.
I breakdown types loosely as follows:
Runway:
Generally tearsheet work on a runway; the model should be in motion and the focus is the functionality of the clothes or accoutrement worn. Show how sexy and slinky the dress can look or how useful the shoulder bag can be since it can slide over the back and be used as a backpack sling. Perhaps you would have a young man in a golf rainvest demonstrating the movement allowed as he lifts his arms to put his hands behind his head or reaches out while walking. These seem to be more action shots to me.
Fashion:
This is similar to runway except the model can be stationary; there is no need to demonstrate the clothing, just a need to display it. You don't have to show how the dress moves or how "breathable" and flexible the rainvest is, just show how fashionable it looks. Sell the item through the model.
Glamour:
The focus has shifted here from the funcationality of the garmet/product, past just the look of the item and onto the model. Glamour shots, IMO, depend on mood and this is generally created by setting, lighting and pose. I am interested in shooting this type of shot as most women I've met who want photos of themselves would love to see themselves as glamourous at least once (think of all the dresses and/or heels purchased that only make it out of the closet once for about 2 hours). These types of shots aren't about pain for beauty but about luxurious, sensual interpretation of light, tones, angles and textures. Capture not just the image that any idiot can see, capture the ethos of the whole setting so that a viewer can easily project him or herself into the composition and feel the languid, luscious environment. Some people have perfected the ability to capture this mood with objects as well as people.
Editorial:
In my mind this type of photo borders on Glamour work but it looses some of the more artistic interpretation of the feeling and goes for a more visceral interpretation and focus on the external; the physique of the subject (whether the subject is a person or an inanimate object). It still depends on the ability of the photographer to project his or her interpretation of the subject but photos that fit this type of work (IMO) don't go so far in creating the atmosphere for the viewer.
Casuals:
Casuals tend to me to be a more natural expression and pose of the subject. These types of shots tend to lead more towards catalog product modeling in my experience. They don't need to create an "edge" to help sell the product. These are just personable photographs of subjects.
Nude:
Nude work is so far beyond my skills right now. It can be a powerful medium in which to work as it carries with it an element of both glamour and editorial style and it can engender strong reactions (both positively and negatively) but for my own growth and experience I want to master lighting, setting, composition and posing using less . . . potentially inflammable subjects and settings so that if . . . when I'm ready to try expressing my vision with nudes (male and female forms) I'm pretty sure that its my vision that I'm expressing and not just somoene else's body that I'm appreciating. I still find it difficult to generate a vision for a photoshoot with someone who is clothed. I find it hard to come up with a cohesive theme and if I do come up with one I find it difficult to convey that idea and stay on-task to get all those shots throughout the shoot. The nude medium (whether plain nudes or fine art nudes) can be powerful but they can also be egregious and used to boring (or worse, childish) effect. I'm reminded of the simplistic manner in which DrJones captures lovely, moving shots that hint at intimacy without seeming lascivious (to me).
For my own evaluation of my work in light of these styles of portrait photography I feel that I can consistently produce acceptable fashion or casual work. Given the subjects with whom I work (young, aspiring model who are just beginning their portfolios) I find that my work greatly elevates what they already have even though my work doesn't provide much artistic vision and direction to their portfolios. My work is 100% better than the shots that they got their friend to take outside their house on Easter Sunday or at the Christmas party when they were dressed up. On the other hand, my work beside someone who has an artistic vision and generates a powerful composition . . . well, there I'm still lacking and that's why I just keep on shooting. I give 'em a good starting point for getting some interest.
I'm interested in hearing others' interpretations of these and other styles of modeling photography.
Kev |
